The Monitor's View:
“A survey released last week by the Pew Hispanic Center found more than four in 10 Mexicans are willing to leave their country to live in the US. One in five would risk a dangerous, illegal border crossing. Most surprising, one in three college graduates wants to flee. Before Washington takes up immigration reform this fall, it needs to take a hard look at Mexico's disillusionment.” ---- Christian Science Monitor

Monday, July 6, 2009

Lou Dobbs Tonight Friday July 25, 2008 California’s budget crisis is escalating. The deficit is so bad that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger could cut state worker pay to minimum wage. And Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado sent a letter today to Schwarzenegger to urge him to look into the millions of dollars spent on illegal aliens in California in light of the massive budget shortfalls. ......................

The Golden State today bodes ill for the U.S. of tomorrow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SANTA BARBARA--October 5, 2006--America prepares to surge past a population of 300 million people sometime around October 15, one need only to look at what has happened to California over the past two decades to see what is in store for the rest of the nation. "Three hundred million people is neither an achievement nor an endpoint, but just a landmark on the way to a billion people," said Diana Hull, President of Californians for Population Stabilization. "It is time to remind everyone again, that perpetual growth is the philosophy of a cancer cell." Hull delivered her comments at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, where some of the nation's top population and immigration experts warned that 300 million people is nothing to celebrate. The grim foretelling in California of the impacts that massive population growth will have on the nation's environment and quality-of-life demonstrates how fast the 'tipping-point' can be reached. "The California Experiment is an example of how far and how fast a magnificent natural inheritance can be squandered and plundered," Hull said. "How fast the skid and how far the fall." Hull, a behavioral scientist trained in demography who served on the Sierra Club's Population Committee and the Southern California Demographic Forum, said California's cultural penchant for fast-if-easy living was quickly outstripped by its unchecked appetite for simply 'more.' "In our state, the race to gargantuan-size has progressed so far and so fast that we can barely move," Hull said. "Freeways have become like doors that the morbidly obese can no longer fit through, thus the size of everything has to expand." It's unlikely that Governor Pat Brown, who invested heavily in California's infrastructure, could have envisioned in 1965 the human tidal wave that would eventually swamp his fabled public works. But it was in 1965 that real sustained population growth began in California that would take on what Hull described as "astonishing momentum" over the next four decades. In 1965, California's population was just over 18 million people. Today, California has more than 37 million people, and sustains a net-gain of about 500,000 more people annually. The vast majority of people flowing into the state, Hull said, are legal and illegal immigrants; the vast majority of them are poor and uneducated and require social assistance. The resulting cultural arguments over immigration have obscured the most basic question the state government and the media should be openly discussing: how many more people can the state take? The answer may be found in the devolution of California over the past four decades, from a sun-dappled state that could provide its people an enviable quality of life to a gritty jumble of jammed public schools, failing emergency rooms, overwhelmed social services, vanishing green space and suburban sprawl so vast that three hour commutes to and from work are now a reality. As Hull noted on Tuesday, the overpopulating of California occurred not with popular support, but rather amid a collective slumber. "The state became a pilot project in a failed social experiment that no one had agreed to beforehand," she said. "All around us there were more people, more traffic, more crowds, more long waits, more houses and more shopping centersbut never enough." The resulting dislocations caused by a deteriorating quality of life, which has seen large numbers of Californians fleeing the state, has been more than made up for by surging net gains in the population fueled by immigration. Yet amazingly, the nation's bi-partisan leadership at virtually every level of the federal government seems unwilling to learn from what has happened to California, but to the contrary seem more than prepared to let California's fate become America's future. Despite four decades of hard evidence of the potentially catastrophic impacts--particularly for the environment--of unmanaged population growth, Hull said the nation's leaders have been shamefully silent. "As demographic momentum accelerated, the pace of this growth and the changes it wrought were never systematically observed and monitored, nor even officially acknowledged," she said. "And little interest was shown in evaluating outcomes." Those outcomes are evident everyday now in California, from the implosion of trauma centers across Los Angeles County to the bulldozing of some of the most fertile farmland in the Central Valley to make way for more homes. "The two very worst outcomes are that infrastructure over-use wears everything out faster than we can replace it," Hull said. "And there is an insatiable demand on natural resources that are now unable to replenish themselves." ABOUT CALIFORNIANS FOR POPULATION STABILIZATION (CAPS) Californians for Population Stabilization is a non-profit organization dedicated to formulating and advancing policies and programs designed to stabilize the population of California at a level which will preserve a good quality of life for all Californians; www.capsweb.org.

California voters are becoming increasingly pessimistic, with immigration issues topping their worries, according to a new Field Poll released Friday.

In a survey in the spring, half of voters interviewed statewide said that California was among the best places in the world to live, with 52 percent saying the Golden State was also moving in the right direction.But now, burdened by a sputtering economy and doubts about the ability of elected officials to deal with mounting problems, voters' outlook is split - 42 percent of them said the state is headed in the right direction, while 42 percent gave a negative view and 16 percent were undecided.And immigration and border protection questions have jumped back into the forefront of voter issues. Two years ago, the last time the poll asked an open-ended question about voter concerns, just 6 percent of those interviewed identified immigration as their top concern. In the new poll, 21 percent of voters named immigration and border control as their top concern - well ahead of public schools (13 percent) and the economy (9 percent)."There's a lot of reasons, but when we see concerns about the economy, we usually see a spike on immigration, too," said Jaime Regalado, director of the Pat Brown Institute of Public Affairs at California State University Los Angeles. "It's a pocketbook issue - but it's an issue that has just not gone away."The poll, conducted during the 10-day period ending Oct. 21, was drawn from random telephone interviews with 579 registered voters. It had a sampling error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, said he believes many voters had expected Congress and President Bush to work out a comprehensive immigration bill by now and the lack of a deal has disappointed them."Voters were led to believe that there would be some kind of immigration reform coming out of Washington," DiCamillo said. "But it never took hold, there was too much opposition and it's led to a great deal of frustration on this issue."A Field Poll from July 2006 found that even during better economic times, 58 percent of Californians believed the problem of illegal immigration was a serious one; with 71 percent saying the number of federal agents patrolling the border should be increased.The new poll did not include any follow-up questions about immigration, although the issue was mentioned more frequently among voters in Los Angeles County - 30 percent - than voters in the Bay Area (21 percent) and in Southern California outside of Los Angeles (19 percent.)Bill Hing, a law professor who specializes in immigration issues from UC Davis, said there has been a great of media coverage of the border issues and illegal immigration over the past two years as a result of efforts in Washington to overhaul the laws and the many protest marches put on by pro-immigrant groups."I really think there's a lot of Americans who don't think immigration is that big a deal," he said. "But when you had these big demonstrations with people waving the Mexican flag - the truth is many Americans don't like seeing pro-immigration protests."

Hing and Regalado also noted that several popular talk-radio stations - mostly in Southern California - and CNN commentator Lou Dobbs have made immigration a central theme of their broadcasts.

LOS ANGELES TIMES60 million Californians by mid-century

Riverside will become the second most populous county behind Los Angeles and Latinos the dominant ethnic group, study says.By Maria L. La Ganga and Sara LinTimes Staff WritersJuly 10, 2007Over the next half-century, California's population will explode by nearly 75%, and Riverside will surpass its bigger neighbors to become the second most populous county after Los Angeles, according to state Department of Finance projections released Monday. California will near the 60-million mark in 2050, the study found, raising questions about how the state will look and function and where all the people and their cars will go. Dueling visions pit the iconic California building block of ranch house, big yard and two-car garage against more dense, high-rise development.But whether sprawl or skyscrapers win the day, the Golden State will probably be a far different and more complex place than it is today, as people live longer and Latinos become the dominant ethnic group, eclipsing all others combined.Some critics forecast disaster if gridlock and environmental impacts are not averted. Others see a possible economic boon, particularly for retailers and service industries with an eye on the state as a burgeoning market."It's opportunity with baggage," said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., in "a country masquerading as a state."Other demographers argue that the huge population increase the state predicts will occur only if officials complete major improvements to roads and other public infrastructure. Without that investment, they say, some Californians would flee the state.If the finance department's calculations hold, California's population will rise from 34.1 million in 2000 to 59.5 million at the mid-century point, about the same number of people as Italy has today. And its projected growth rate in those 50 years will outstrip the national rate — nearly 75% compared with less than 50% projected by the federal government. That could translate to increased political clout in Washington, D.C. Southern California's population is projected to grow at a rate of more than 60%, according to the new state figures, reaching 31.6 million by mid-century. That's an increase of 12.1 million over just seven counties.L.A. County alone will top 13 million by 2050, an increase of almost 3.5 million residents. And Riverside County — long among the fastest-growing in the state — will triple in population to 4.7 million by mid-century.Riverside County will add 3.1 million people, according to the new state figures, eclipsing Orange and San Diego to become the second most populous in the state. With less expensive housing than the coast, Riverside County has grown by more than 472,000 residents since 2000, according to state estimates.But many residents face agonizingly long commutes to work in other areas. And Monday, the state's growth projections raised some concerns in the Inland Empire.Registered nurse Fifi Bo moved from Los Angeles to Corona nine years ago so she could buy a house and avoid urban congestion. But she'd consider moving even farther east now that Riverside County is grappling with its own crowding problems."But where am I going? People used to move to Victorville, but [housing prices in] Victorville already got high," the 36-year-old said as she fretted about traffic and smog and public services stretched thin. "We don't know where to go. Maybe Arizona."John Husing, an economist who studies the Inland Empire, is betting that even in land-rich Riverside County, more vertical development is on the horizon. Part of the reason: a multi-species habitat conservation plan that went into effect in 2005, preserving 550,000 acres of green space that otherwise would have vanished."The difficult thing will be for anybody who likes where they live in Riverside County because it's rural," Husing said. "In 2050, you might still find rural out by Blythe, but other than that, forget rural."Husing predicts that growth will be most dramatic beyond the city of Riverside as the patches of empty space around communities such as Palm Springs, Perris and Hemet begin to fill in with housing tracts. The Coachella Valley, for example, will become fully developed and seem like less of a distinct area outside of Riverside, he said. "It'll be desert urban, but it'll be urban. Think of Phoenix," he said. Expect a lot of the new development in Riverside County to go up along the 215 Freeway between Perris and Murrieta, according to Riverside County Planning Director Ron Goldman. Thousands of homes have popped up in that area in the last decade, and Goldman said applications for that area indicate condominiums are next. The department is so busy that he's hiring 10 people who'll start in the next month."We have over 5,000 active development applications in processing right now," he said.No matter how much local governments build in the way of public works and how many new jobs are attracted to the region — minimizing the need for long commutes — Husing figures that growth will still overwhelm the area's roads.USC Professor Genevieve Giuliano, an expert on land use and transportation, would probably agree. Such massive growth, if it occurs, she said, will require huge investment in the state's highways, schools, and energy and sewer systems at a "very formidable cost."If those things aren't built, Giuliano questioned whether the projected population increases will occur. "Sooner or later, the region will not be competitive and the growth is not going to happen," she said.If major problems like traffic congestion and housing costs aren't addressed, Giuliano warned, the middle class is going to exit California, leaving behind very high-income and very low-income residents. "It's a political question," said Martin Wachs, a transportation expert at the Rand Corp. in Santa Monica. "Do we have the will, the consensus, the willingness to pay? If we did, I think we could manage the growth."The numbers released Monday underscore most demographers' view that the state's population is pushing east, from both Los Angeles and the Bay Area, to counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino as well as half a dozen or so smaller Central Valley counties.Sutter County, for example, is expected to be the fastest-growing on a percentage basis between 2000 and 2050, jumping 255% to a population of 282,894 , the state said. Kern County is expected to see its population more than triple to 2.1 million by mid-century.In Southern California, San Diego County is projected to grow by almost 1.7 million residents and Orange County by 1.1 million. Even Ventura County — where voters have imposed some limits on urban sprawl — will see its population jump 62% to more than 1.2 million if the projections hold.The Department of Finance releases long-term population projections every three years. Between the last two reports, number crunchers have taken a more detailed look at California's statistics and taken into account the likelihood that people will live longer, said chief demographer Mary Heim.The result?The latest numbers figure the state will be much more crowded than earlier estimates (by nearly 5 million) and that it will take a bit longer than previously thought for Latinos to become the majority of California's population: 2042, not 2038.The figures show that the majority of California's growth will be in the Latino population, said Dowell Myers, a professor of urban planning and demography at USC, adding that "68% of the growth this decade will be Latino, 75% next and 80% after that."That should be a wake-up call for voting Californians, Myers said, pointing out a critical disparity. Though the state's growth is young and Latino, the majority of voters will be older and white — at least for the next decade."The future of the state is Latino growth," Myers said. "We'd sure better invest in them and get them up to speed. Older white voters don't see it that way. They don't realize that someone has to replace them in the work force, pay for their benefits and buy their house."

News Release: CALIFORNIA IS THE DIM PICTURE OF AMERICA'S FUTURE Visit CAPS website at www.capsweb.org. The Golden State today bodes ill for the U.S. of tomorrow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SANTA BARBARA--October 5, 2006--America prepares to surge past a population of 300 million people sometime around October 15, one need only to look at what has happened to California over the past two decades to see what is in store for the rest of the nation. "Three hundred million people is neither an achievement nor an endpoint, but just a landmark on the way to a billion people," said Diana Hull, President of Californians for Population Stabilization. "It is time to remind everyone again, that perpetual growth is the philosophy of a cancer cell." Hull delivered her comments at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, where some of the nation's top population and immigration experts warned that 300 million people is nothing to celebrate. The grim foretelling in California of the impacts that massive population growth will have on the nation's environment and quality-of-life demonstrates how fast the 'tipping-point' can be reached. "The California Experiment is an example of how far and how fast a magnificent natural inheritance can be squandered and plundered," Hull said. "How fast the skid and how far the fall." Hull, a behavioral scientist trained in demography who served on the Sierra Club's Population Committee and the Southern California Demographic Forum, said California's cultural penchant for fast-if-easy living was quickly outstripped by its unchecked appetite for simply 'more.' "In our state, the race to gargantuan-size has progressed so far and so fast that we can barely move," Hull said. "Freeways have become like doors that the morbidly obese can no longer fit through, thus the size of everything has to expand." It's unlikely that Governor Pat Brown, who invested heavily in California's infrastructure, could have envisioned in 1965 the human tidal wave that would eventually swamp his fabled public works. But it was in 1965 that real sustained population growth began in California that would take on what Hull described as "astonishing momentum" over the next four decades. In 1965, California's population was just over 18 million people. Today, California has more than 37 million people, and sustains a net-gain of about 500,000 more people annually. The vast majority of people flowing into the state, Hull said, are legal and illegal immigrants; the vast majority of them are poor and uneducated and require social assistance. The resulting cultural arguments over immigration have obscured the most basic question the state government and the media should be openly discussing: how many more people can the state take? The answer may be found in the devolution of California over the past four decades, from a sun-dappled state that could provide its people an enviable quality of life to a gritty jumble of jammed public schools, failing emergency rooms, overwhelmed social services, vanishing green space and suburban sprawl so vast that three hour commutes to and from work are now a reality. As Hull noted on Tuesday, the overpopulating of California occurred not with popular support, but rather amid a collective slumber. "The state became a pilot project in a failed social experiment that no one had agreed to beforehand," she said. "All around us there were more people, more traffic, more crowds, more long waits, more houses and more shopping centersbut never enough." The resulting dislocations caused by a deteriorating quality of life, which has seen large numbers of Californians fleeing the state, has been more than made up for by surging net gains in the population fueled by immigration. Yet amazingly, the nation's bi-partisan leadership at virtually every level of the federal government seems unwilling to learn from what has happened to California, but to the contrary seem more than prepared to let California's fate become America's future. Despite four decades of hard evidence of the potentially catastrophic impacts--particularly for the environment--of unmanaged population growth, Hull said the nation's leaders have been shamefully silent. "As demographic momentum accelerated, the pace of this growth and the changes it wrought were never systematically observed and monitored, nor even officially acknowledged," she said. "And little interest was shown in evaluating outcomes." Those outcomes are evident everyday now in California, from the implosion of trauma centers across Los Angeles County to the bulldozing of some of the most fertile farmland in the Central Valley to make way for more homes. "The two very worst outcomes are that infrastructure over-use wears everything out faster than we can replace it," Hull said. "And there is an insatiable demand on natural resources that are now unable to replenish themselves." ABOUT CALIFORNIANS FOR POPULATION STABILIZATION (CAPS) Californians for Population Stabilization is a non-profit organization dedicated to formulating and advancing policies and programs designed to stabilize the population of California at a level which will preserve a good quality of life for all Californians; www.capsweb.org.

INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants 2006 (First Quarter) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants CRIME STATISTICS 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens. 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens. 86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens. 75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens. 24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally 40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally 48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally 29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually 53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens. 50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens from south of the border. 71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or “transport coyotes". 47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens. 63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens 66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66% 98% are illegal aliens. BIRTH STATISTICS 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the U.S. in 2005 to illegal alien parents, making 380,000 babies automatically U.S.citizens. 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers. 66% plus of all births in California are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers THE BELOW IS EXCERPTED FROM THE ARTICLE LINKED BELOW. READ IT AND SEND IT!

Mexifornia, Five Years Later The flood of illegal immigrants into California has made things worse than I foresaw. Victor Davis Hanson Winter 2007 In the Spring 2002 issue of City Journal, I wrote an essay about growing up in the central San Joaquin Valley and witnessing firsthand, especially over the last 20 years, the ill effects of illegal immigration (City Journal’s editors chose the title of the piece: “Do We Want Mexifornia?”). Controversy over my blunt assessment of the disaster of illegal immigration from Mexico led to an expanded memoir, Mexifornia, published the following year by Encounter Press. MEXICAN GOVERNMENT UNDERMINES AMERICAN LAWS AND BORDERS TO SUBSIDIZE IT’S OWN FAILURESWorker remittances sent back to Mexico now earn it precious American dollars equal to the revenue from 500,000 barrels of daily exported oil. In short, Mexico cannot afford to lose its second-largest source of hard currency and will do almost anything to ensure its continuance. When Mexico City publishes comic books advising its own citizens how best to cross the Rio Grande, Americans take offense. Not only does Mexico brazenly wish to undermine American law to subsidize its own failures, but it also assumes that those who flee northward are among its least educated, departing without much ability to read beyond the comic-book level. We are also learning not only that Mexico wants its expatriates’ cash—and its nationals lobbying for Mexican interests—once they are safely away from their motherland; we are also discovering that Mexico doesn’t have much concern about the welfare of its citizens abroad in America. The conservative estimate of $15 billion sent home comes always at the expense of low-paid Mexicans toiling here, who must live in impoverished circumstances if they are to send substantial portions of their wages home to Mexico. (And it comes as well at the expense of American taxpayers, providing health-care and food subsidies in efforts to offer a safety net to cash-strapped illegal aliens.) So it is not just that Mexico exports its own citizens, but it does so on the expectation that they are serfs of a sort, who, like the helots of old, surrender much of the earnings of their toil to their distant masters. At the same time, focus has turned more to the U.S.-born children of Mexican illegal immigrants, in whom illegitimacy, school dropout rates, and criminal activity have risen to such levels that no longer can we simply dismiss Mexican immigration as resembling the more problematic but eventually successful Italian model of a century ago. Then, large numbers of southern European Catholics, most without capital and education, arrived en masse from Italy and Sicily, lived in ethnic enclaves, and for decades lagged behind the majority population in educational achievement, income, and avoidance of crime—before achieving financial parity as well as full assimilation and intermarriage. Since 1990, the number of poor Mexican-Americans has climbed 52 percent, a figure that skewed U.S. poverty rates. Billions of dollars spent on our own poor will not improve our poverty statistics when 1 million of the world’s poorest cross our border each year. The number of impoverished black children has dropped 17 percent in the last 16 years, but the number of Hispanic poor has gone up 43 percent. We don’t like to talk of illegitimacy, but here again the ripples of illegal immigration reach the U.S.-born generation. Half of births to Hispanic-Americans were illegitimate, 42 percent higher than the general rate of the American population. Illegitimacy is higher in general in Mexico than in the United States, but the force multiplier of illegal status, lack of English, and an absence of higher education means that the children of Mexican immigrants have illegitimacy rates even higher than those found in either Mexico or the United States. Education levels reveal the same dismal pattern—nearly half of all Hispanics are not graduating from high school in four years. And the more Hispanic a school district becomes, the greater level of failure for Hispanic students. In the Los Angeles district, 73 percent Hispanic, 60 percent of the students are not graduating. But the real tragedy is that, of those Hispanics who do graduate, only about one in five will have completed a high school curriculum that qualifies for college enrollment. That partly helps to explain why at many campuses of the California State University system, almost half of the incoming class must first take remedial education. Less than 10 percent of those who identify themselves as Hispanic have graduated from college with a bachelor’s degree. I found that teaching Latin to first-generation Mexican-Americans and illegal aliens was valuable not so much as an introduction to the ancient world but as their first experience with remedial English grammar. Meanwhile, almost one in three Mexican-American males between the ages of 18 and 24 recently reported being arrested, one in five has been jailed, and 15,000 illegal aliens are currently in the California penal system. The growing national discomfort over illegal immigration more than four years after “Mexifornia” first appeared in City Journal is not only apparent in the rightward shift of the debate but also in the absence of any new arguments for open borders—while the old arguments, Americans are finally concluding, really do erode the law, reward the cynical here and abroad, and needlessly divide Americans along class, political, and ethnic lines.

You thought things couldn’t get much worse in CALIFORNIA… now MEXIFORNIA… then you don’t know how fast ILLEGALS are breeding. But then you probably didn’t know that YOU’RE PAYING FOR THE HOSPITAL COSTS OF ALL THESE ANCHORS!

POPULATION TO DOUBLE... LATINO THE DOMINANT ETHNIC GROUP.....double the deficits above! And double the crime, graffiti, anchor babies and homes foreclosed on with bars on the windows.Riverside will become the second most populous county behind Los Angeles and Latinos the dominant ethnic group, study says. By Maria L. La Ganga and Sara Lin

Times Staff WritersJuly 10, 2007Over the next half-century, California's population will explode by nearly 75%, and Riverside will surpass its bigger neighbors to become the second most populous county after Los Angeles, according to state Department of Finance projections released Monday. California will near the 60-million mark in 2050, the study found, raising questions about how the state will look and function and where all the people and their cars will go. Dueling visions pit the iconic California building block of ranch house, big yard and two-car garage against more dense, high-rise development. But whether sprawl or skyscrapers win the day, the Golden State will probably be a far different and more complex place than it is today, as people live longer and Latinos become the dominant ethnic group, eclipsing all others combined. Some critics forecast disaster if gridlock and environmental impacts are not averted. Others see a possible economic boon, particularly for retailers and service industries with an eye on the state as a burgeoning market."It's opportunity with baggage," said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., in "a country masquerading as a state."Other demographers argue that the huge population increase the state predicts will occur only if officials complete major improvements to roads and other public infrastructure. Without that investment, they say, some Californians would flee the state.If the finance department's calculations hold, California's population will rise from 34.1 million in 2000 to 59.5 million at the mid-century point, about the same number of people as Italy has today. And its projected growth rate in those 50 years will outstrip the national rate — nearly 75% compared with less than 50% projected by the federal government. That could translate to increased political clout in Washington, D.C. Southern California's population is projected to grow at a rate of more than 60%, according to the new state figures, reaching 31.6 million by mid-century. That's an increase of 12.1 million over just seven counties. L.A. County alone will top 13 million by 2050, an increase of almost 3.5 million residents. And Riverside County — long among the fastest-growing in the state — will triple in population to 4.7 million by mid-century. Riverside County will add 3.1 million people, according to the new state figures, eclipsing Orange and San Diego to become the second most populous in the state. With less expensive housing than the coast, Riverside County has grown by more than 472,000 residents since 2000, according to state estimates. No matter how much local governments build in the way of public works and how many new jobs are attracted to the region — minimizing the need for long commutes — Husing figures that growth will still overwhelm the area's roads.USC Professor Genevieve Giuliano, an expert on land use and transportation, would probably agree. Such massive growth, if it occurs, she said, will require huge investment in the state's highways, schools, and energy and sewer systems at a "very formidable cost."If those things aren't built, Giuliano questioned whether the projected population increases will occur. "Sooner or later, the region will not be competitive and the growth is not going to happen," she said.If major problems like traffic congestion and housing costs aren't addressed, Giuliano warned, the middle class is going to exit California, leaving behind very high-income and very low-income residents. "It's a political question," said Martin Wachs, a transportation expert at the Rand Corp. in Santa Monica. "Do we have the will, the consensus, the willingness to pay? If we did, I think we could manage the growth."The numbers released Monday underscore most demographers' view that the state's population is pushing east, from both Los Angeles and the Bay Area, to counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino as well as half a dozen or so smaller Central Valley counties.Sutter County, for example, is expected to be the fastest-growing on a percentage basis between 2000 and 2050, jumping 255% to a population of 282,894 , the state said. Kern County is expected to see its population more than triple to 2.1 million by mid-century.In Southern California, San Diego County is projected to grow by almost 1.7 million residents and Orange County by 1.1 million. Even Ventura County — where voters have imposed some limits on urban sprawl — will see its population jump 62% to more than 1.2 million if the projections hold.The Department of Finance releases long-term population projections every three years. Between the last two reports, number crunchers have taken a more detailed look at California's statistics and taken into account the likelihood that people will live longer, said chief demographer Mary Heim.The result?The latest numbers figure the state will be much more crowded than earlier estimates (by nearly 5 million) and that it will take a bit longer than previously thought for Latinos to become the majority of California's population: 2042, not 2038.The figures show that the majority of California's growth will be in the Latino population, said Dowell Myers, a professor of urban planning and demography at USC, adding that "68% of the growth this decade will be Latino, 75% next and 80% after that."That should be a wake-up call for voting Californians, Myers said, pointing out a critical disparity. Though the state's growth is young and Latino, the majority of voters will be older and white — at least for the next decade."The future of the state is Latino growth," Myers said. "We'd sure better invest in them and get them up to speed. Older white voters don't see it that way. They don't realize that someone has to replace them in the work force, pay for their benefits and buy their house."

THE KENNEDY, FEINSTEIN, REID , McCAIN Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years

by Robert Rector HERITIAGE.ORG Statement on Immigration Research (Update: On Tuesday, May 16, the Senate passed Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) amendment to S. 2611 that significantly reduced the number of legal immigrants who could enter under the bill's "guest worker" program. As a result of this change, our estimate of the number of legal immigrants who would enter the country or would gain legal status under S. 2611 falls from 103 million to around 66 million over the next 20 years.) If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States. Much attention has been given to the fact that the bill grants amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants. Little or no attention has been given to the fact that the bill would quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the United States, raising, over time, the inflow of legal immigrants from around one million per year to over five million per year. The impact of this increase in legal immigration dwarfs the magnitude of the amnesty provisions. In contrast to the 103 million immigrants permitted under CIRA, current law allows 19 million legal immigrants over the next twenty years. Relative to current law, then, CIRA would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the nation’s population. The figure of 103 million legal immigrants is a reasonable estimate of the actual immigration inflow under the bill and not the maximum number that would be legally permitted to enter. The maximum number that could legally enter would be almost 200 million over twenty years—over 180 million more legal immigrants than current law permits. Immigration Status To understand the provisions of CIRA, largely based on a compromise by Senators Chuck Hagel (R–Nebraska) and Mel Martinez (R–Florida), it is useful to distinguish between the three legal statuses that a legal immigrant might hold: http://immigrationcounters.com/

BIG BUSINESS ORGANIZES TO ABET THE INVASION OF MILLIONS MORE ILLEGAL PREGNANT AND ILLITERATE MEXICAN CRIMINALS WAVING THEIR MEX FLAGS....

It ain’t really news, is it?

It’s really not as much about the 40 million illegals that have invaded this nation, it’s about the WAL-MARTing of America. The war to depress wages for Americans.

You saw how hard it was for our elected whores to raise the minimum wage for the first time in a decade, a period in which they had voted themselves mucho big raises!

But all this “cheap” Mexican labor has a staggering price! It’s just that the business interests, most of which are generous La Raza “the race” contributors, as they give to the La Raza candidates, don’t pay the ultimate price. YOU DO!

Visit bankrupt California which has the largest concentration of La Raza owned politicians working for the business interests. The state is bankrupt, yet spends billions on welfare for illegals, prison cost for illegals, education for illegals, and to defend Americans against their crimes, from Mexican gangs that are spreading all over the state from “sanctuary city” and Mexican gang capital of America (source Christian Science Monitor) Los Angeles ---- home of 1 out 5 state paid anchor babies.

The pictures is already way beyond bleak and the population of illegals is predicted to DOUBLE in a very short time as result of the Mexican invasion and Mexican heavy breeding.

In California ALL the elected politicians are secretly working for amnesty. It’s the bit by bit by bit multitudes of amnesties that La Raza and Big Business demands.

La Raza whores Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi work hard for the welfare for BIG AGRI BIZ plan the Senate has, of course, passed. The three old whores wanted to get their amnesty for one million illegal farm workers and then their extended families up from Mexico, worked in the bill. You see, Nancy Pelosi has for decades hired illegals for her St. Helena, Napa winery. She might barf on her designer togs if she had to pay an American a living wage!

La Raza whore (google Clinton and La Raza) Hillary Clinton has received nearly 90% of her campaign bribes from Wall Streeters. The other 10% came from illegal Chinese felons, like the ones that have followed the Clintons from their White House days, and also from her Indian-Pakistanis business pals. You see not only do the La Raza whores want another 40 million heavy breeding (your tab!) Mexicans for generation after generation of depressed wages, they have this visa program going to permit millions of Chinese and Indians in to take our jobs. When was the last time you were in Silicon Valley, California? They bring Indians in for gas station jobs, and Office Depot positions. The rest of Bay Area is just a Chinese - Indian third-world country. Half the storefronts are only signed in Chinese characters now.

....It’s all about the WAL-MARTing of America, and there’s no one better to explain it than former Wal-Mart board member, Hillary R Clinton.

Barak Obama, is also a La Raza whore. You didn’t hear Oprah talking about how much Obama wants to depress American wages, or the fact that he appeared recently in Los Angeles and only talked votes for him will help buy amnesty for illegals. Not a word on the numerous articles in the Los Angeles Times on illegal Mexican gangs murdering African-AMERICAS (google it!).

John Edwards is an actor that spends $400 getting his locks cut. He’s made millions from the corporate interests that benefit from depressed wages. He’s also an open borders amnesty advocate. You don’t really think he could get all that Wall Street money if he hadn’t a proven record on protecting the billionaire class! He’s made millions off the sub-prime bankers and is building a 30,000 foot home while millions get foreclose on by crooked bankers.

It’s not really hard to connect the dots on these clowns, because just like George W Bush, a man that failed at everything he’s ever done, other than his massive transfer to the Nations’ economy and environment to the corporate class, these politicians’ stories have never been different. Not matter what spin they spew, ultimately they only want to serve their masters, THE CORPORATE CLASS.

Businesses Will Fight Immigration LegislationVa. Coalition Opposes Punishing Employers1. By Amy GardnerWashington Post Staff WriterSaturday, December 15, 2007; B01A broad coalition of Virginia business interests, including some of the most powerful trade groups in the state, has created an organization to oppose laws that would punish employers with undocumented workers on their payrolls.Virginia Employers for Sensible Immigration Policy was formed in anticipation of another flurry of legislation in the General Assembly seeking to crack down on undocumented residents and employers that hire them, business leaders said. Individual trade groups and companies have spoken out before about specific anti-illegal immigration proposals, but the new group is the business community's most visible and organized effort to influence the immigration debate."This is a major issue in Virginia, and we wanted to come together as a group and have a seat at the table," said Julia Ciarlo Hammond, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business. She was one of the organizers of the new group.The coalition's formation comes at a critical time, just after a bruising state and local election season during which public anxiety over illegal immigration figured prominently in many campaigns. Politicians seeking to get tough on illegal immigration have been targeting employers with increasing frequency, a tactic that critics have said allows them to appear responsive without being vulnerable to accusations of intolerance or meanness toward immigrants.

One proposal that failed last session in Richmond would have revoked the state business license of any employer found to hire undocumented workers. Another would have prohibited employers from filing workers' compensation claims for undocumented employees; the employers would have been required to pay such claims from their own pockets. Variations on those bills are certain to reappear in the session that begins Jan. 9, advocates said.Claire Guthrie Gastanaga of the Virginia Coalition of Latino Organizations said she expects more than 50 pieces of legislation touching on immigration in the session. She said she welcomes help fighting policies that she believes make all immigrants, documented or otherwise, feel unwelcome in Virginia."This coalition is important," she said. "Frankly, it takes some of the heat off of me."The coalition includes some of the most influential industries in the state, including many that rely heavily on low-cost and migrant labor. The group includes home builders, contractors, hog and poultry growers, retailers, truckers, the hospitality industry and the state Chamber of Commerce."Our coalition at this point wants to be at the table to make sure that business is able to participate in the discussion," Hammond said. "It's very straightforward. We are interested in making sure that our employers have a legal immigrant workforce and that we comply with the rules and regulations that help us maintain our legal immigrant workforce."Hammond said the group will focus exclusively on proposals affecting employers, in part because such laws are expected in the coming session and in part to maintain a narrow focus for a new and fragile coalition. Some business groups, including the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce, have taken stands on immigration laws affecting not only employers but also access to public universities."It's time for the business community to come together and voice some sense of reason and balance in the immigration debate," said William D. Lecos, president of the Fairfax chamber. "It's clear that at its worst, some of the legislation is either poorly placed, meaning the state is trying to do what is a federal responsibility, or it is just so fundamentally unfair and imbalanced that it threatens to compromise the quality of life and economy of Virginia rather than improve it."State Del. Thomas Davis Rust (R-Fairfax), who has supported a variety of measures to restrict undocumented residents, said it is entirely legitimate to impose sanctions on businesses that hire illegal workers. Rust is a businessman himself, an engineer with his own company in Herndon. He noted that many of the industries represented in the coalition, particularly construction and agriculture, are known to rely heavily on undocumented labor."It's against the law to hire folks who are not in the country legally," Rust said. "As an employer of a fairly substantial number of people, I would take issue with the fact that it's difficult to check."Business leaders said the reverse. They said the business sanctions cast too wide a net and place an undue burden on employers to police the immigration status of their workers. They said the measures also send an unwelcome signal to legal immigrants, who have provided a crucial labor pool, particularly in Northern Virginia, as the economy has boomed in recent years.

The business leaders also argued that some of the measures are not proper because they are preempted by federal law.Rust did not argue that point, although he said the federal government has failed so "miserably" to enforce its immigration laws and police the nation's borders that the state has no choice but to step in."My constituents are saying, 'If they're not going to do it, you've got to do something,' " Rust said. The business coalition, he said, is asking Virginia to mirror the approach of the federal government, which is to "shut your eyes and don't enforce the law."

HOW THEY REALLY WORK FOR

Earmarks Put Candidates On the SpotObama, Clinton Camps Defend Requests Made for Constituents2. By John Solomon and Matthew MoskWashington Post Staff WritersFriday, October 12, 2007; A01Just a few months before he joined the presidential race, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) co-sponsored a little-noticed proposal to require the Pentagon to spend $2 million on brain trauma research for soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.The beneficiary of the Aug. 2, 2006, earmark from him and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) was undeniably close to home: the University of Chicago, where his wife, Michelle, worked as the university hospital's vice president for community and external affairs.Earlier this year, Obama made dozens of additional earmark requests, and -- consistent with his position that such requests be transparent -- he publicly disclosed the beneficiaries. More than half a dozen requests were meant for clients of a lobbying and law firm whose partners have donated more than $38,000 to Obama in the past two years.Obama's work highlights the delicate balancing act faced by several members of Congress running for president, as they try to sound a populist, anti-special-interest message while also fulfilling their traditional role of delivering federal money for their constituents' pet projects.Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who has rejected Obama's attacks that she is too close to lobbyists, arranged a $3 million earmark this spring for the development of hydrogen-fuel and hybrid technology by General Motors, whose lobbyists include one of her biggest fundraisers.And Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), whose presidential campaign frequently attacks excessive spending by Congress, requested more than five dozen earmarks this year worth tens of millions of dollars for causes as diverse as rebuilding a Texas theater, funding a local trolley and helping his state's shrimp industry.

"Yes, Barack Obama is indeed guilty of fighting for important projects in Illinois that help veterans, kids and important infrastructure priorities," said Bill Burton, Obama's campaign spokesman. "He is committed to dramatically reforming the earmark process, and as president he will do so."Durbin spokesman Joseph Shoemaker said that the senator originally came up with the idea for the University of Chicago earmark and that he invited Obama to join in the request. Shoemaker added that he was unaware of any conversations about Michelle Obama's role at the university.The earmark faced stiff opposition on the Senate floor last year. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), then the Appropriations Committee chairman, said directing the funds to the University of Chicago would circumvent the normal process by which the National Institutes of Health hands out research funds."For this to be earmarked here, now, means they no longer have to compete," Stevens said of the university. "The program [NIH has] for allocating money, I think, should not be obviated by an earmark here on the floor." The spending proposal was eventually set aside.Bernadette Sargeant, a former counsel for the House ethics committee, questioned whether Obama should have put his name on a request that would have sent funds to his wife's employer. "It is not like her salary is going to change because of this benefit," she said. "But, given her title and the stature of her position, it is a prestige enhancement, or could be perceived as a prestige enhancement."Sargeant said Obama's decision to co-sponsor the earmark raises concerns under two provisions of the Senate ethics code. The first requires senators to avoid performing official acts that can directly benefit a spouse, and the second more broadly tells senators to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest."There should be a protective wall between benefits directed to her employer and her husband's official acts," Sargeant said. "I would have said, 'Stay away from it.' "Robert Bauer, an ethics lawyer who advises Obama and others, said the senator from Illinois did nothing wrong. "There's absolutely no violation here," he said. "Senate rules on this point are absolutely clear. Michelle Obama is not a lobbyist. Nor has she personally benefited in any way from a request for funding for a research project at one of the largest and most distinguished hospitals in the city and in the country."On the campaign trail, Obama has been among the most vocal critics of the way things work in Washington, tapping into a public disdain for the influence wielded by lobbyists. "The more people know about how federal laws, rules and regulations are made, and who's making them, the less likely it is that critical decisions will be hijacked by lobbyists and special interests," he told a crowd in New Hampshire in June, according to published reports.Until this year, lawmakers were able to shield from public view the work they did to help companies and causes -- and often campaign supporters -- get federal money.

"The new disclosure requirements raise questions that all the candidates will have to answer for the first time," said Ellen S. Miller, co-founder and executive director of the Sunlight Foundation.Obama's campaign aides said there is nothing in his long list of earmarks that he needs to apologize for, noting that the recipients included Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago, the Chicago Botanic Garden, the Illinois Primary Health Care Association and the Illinois Institute of Technology.These and four other groups hired the firm Holland & Knight to lobby for the earmark requests. Though Obama does not accept contributions from registered federal lobbyists, he took 30 contributions totaling $25,900 for his presidential bid from lawyers at the firm who are not lobbyists. Those lawyers also gave about $12,000 to his Senate campaign in the past two years.Susan Bass, a spokeswoman for Holland & Knight, said firm members' political contributions are not orchestrated to gain influence with a specific lawmaker. "Individuals who choose to contribute to presidential campaigns do so as individuals and not as representatives of the firm," she said.Clinton, over the past three years, has secured $8 million in earmarks for General Motors for hybrid, hydrogen and fuel-cell research. The latest installment came in May, when she announced that she had secured $3 million for GM in the fiscal 2008 Pentagon spending bill.One of GM's main lobbyists on the issue is Steve Ricchetti, a deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House and one of Hillary Clinton's "Hillraisers" who are committed to raising at least $100,000 for her presidential campaign. As a donor, he has given $4,600, the maximum allowed, to the campaign.Ricchetti's firm reported earning $120,000 in the first half of this year from lobbying for GM on issues that included the "development and promotion of hydrogen fuel cells and hybrid vehicles."Ricchetti said he and his firm did not lobby Clinton on that specific earmark and he did not know how the funding was secured. Though his partners at times lobby Clinton's Senate office, Ricchetti said, he has decided not to do so because he still does political work for both Hillary and Bill Clinton.Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said the senator does not consider contributions or fundraising when making official decisions. "One thing has nothing to do with the other," Singer said.Paul confirmed through aides to his presidential campaign that he has requested earmarks for Texas projects. But they said he subsequently voted against all of the spending bills that contained the requests."He does think it is his congressional duty to forward all of his constituent requests, and he forwards those requests, and those are earmarks," said Paul spokesman Jesse Benton. "It is not the earmarks that are the problem. It's the size of the spending bills. . . . Ron wants to shrink the size of the pie, and that is why he votes against these overly expensive, unbalanced spending bills."December 16, 2007

It’s the Politics, Stupid By NOAM SCHEIBER THE SQUANDERING OF AMERICA How the Failure of Our Politics Undermines Our Prosperity. By Robert Kuttner. 337 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $26.95. This July, when the Democrats John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all proposed closing a tax loophole that saves hedge fund managers hundreds of millions of dollars each year, it wasn’t immediately clear what to make of it. On the one hand, it was the sort of proposal you’d expect from the party of working people. On the other, these three presidential candidates had stayed silent on the issue for months — while raising gobs of money from wealthy financiers. Why would they turn on them now? Only later did we get some hint of an explanation. The New York Times reported that Charles Schumer, the Senate’s third-ranking Democrat, had spent June assuring Wall Street donors that the loophole would remain intact. This made the pronouncements a victory for everyone involved. The Democratic candidates could take the high road publicly, while their contributors could rest easy knowing those tax breaks were safe. In “The Squandering of America,” Robert Kuttner says financial elites have too much sway over the Democratic Party — and, as a result, over public policy. Judging from the tax-loophole episode, it’s hard to disagree. Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect and a columnist for The Boston Globe, won’t wow you with the novelty of his arguments. Liberals like him spent most of the 1990s groaning about Wall Street’s grip over the Clinton White House, and about the “neoliberal” agenda that resulted. (In his own book, Gene Sperling, once an economic adviser to Bill Clinton, recalls facing off against “the Three Bobs” — one of them Kuttner — during the bruising internecine fights of that decade.) The strength of Kuttner’s latest effort is that, with seven years’ distance from the Clinton era, his arguments now look emphatically right. Kuttner takes on four pillars of neoliberalism: the preference for balanced budgets and modest-size government; free trade; economic austerity as a condition for development aid; and financial-market deregulation. In each case, the evidence suggests neoliberal policies were either irrelevant or downright disruptive. Consider the budget. In 1993, Robert Rubin, then the president’s top economic adviser, helped persuade Clinton to pursue a huge deficit-reduction package. The theory was that the bond markets would reward him with lower interest rates. It seemed to work: the package passed, interest rates fell, and the economy boomed. But two hitches would become apparent. First, the productivity gains that underlay the boom had taken root years earlier. Second, interest rates didn’t actually fall much once you factored in a drop in inflation.

Kuttner doesn’t dispute the need for deficit reduction, given all the red ink Clinton inherited from his Republican predecessors. He just takes issue with what became a fetish for balanced budgets. It led Clinton to underinvest in areas like infrastructure and research and development, which some economists, including the Nobel laureate and former Clinton adviser Joseph Stiglitz, believe slowed growth. Meanwhile, the alarming rise in income inequality since 2000, coupled with European countries’ record of rapid, evenly distributed growth, suggests that a more activist government might be preferable on both social and economic grounds. The story repeats itself over and over. The Clintonites spent the ’90s negotiating one trade deal after another. But once the dust had settled, the laissez-faire approach appeared to have accelerated the decline of American industry. What the Clintonites (and, to be fair, this commentator) missed was that clearing aside trade barriers can leave you dangerously exposed when many of your trading partners — especially in East Asia — don’t reciprocate. Perhaps the most disturbing story involves financial markets. It’s no surprise that an administration staffed with Wall Street refugees would view New Deal-era restrictions on banking and investing as excessive. What’s surprising is that the Clinton White House would champion deregulation with so little regard for the consequences. One of the heroes of those years was Brooksley Born, an obscure bureaucrat who headed the equally obscure Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In 1998, Born wanted to scrutinize a financial instrument called a derivative, whose market she nominally oversaw. This earned her enormous helpings of scorn from Rubin and Alan Greenspan, then the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and she eventually backed down. Later that year, derivatives were at the center of one of the most spectacular financial meltdowns in history. They continue to threaten the economy to this day. For all his insights into political economy, Kuttner sometimes goes astray on questions of crass politics. He says socially conservative working-class voters “would vote for progressive candidates if Democrats gave them more of a reason to vote” — by which he means greater “pocketbook benefits.” Kuttner is right that there are legions of blue-collar workers whose economic interests should make them Democrats. But he offers no hard evidence that they’d support the party if only it moved left on economics — as opposed to, say, right on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Kuttner can be too hard on Democrats. In retrospect, Bill Clinton may not have had sound economic reasons to obsess over the deficit. But he had sound political reasons: namely, that the party’s association with liberal interest groups had made voters loath to trust Democrats with the federal purse strings. Kuttner also plays down many Democrats’ courageous opposition to the most egregious deregulatory efforts of the ’90s — including Clinton’s veto of a pernicious anti-shareholder measure in 1995. For their part, the party’s presidential front-runners have learned a lot from the ’90s. All three have proposed ambitious health insurance programs and savings benefits while voicing doubts about the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Still, given the influence of wealthy investors on the Clinton and Obama campaigns in particular, Kuttner is right to be worried. In May, the legendary hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones II held a 300-person fund-raiser for Barack Obama at his Greenwich, Conn., mansion. If a future Obama administration were to consider, say, reining in derivatives, could the president resist pressure from the likes of Jones? It’s possible. But, like Kuttner, I’m skeptical.Noam Scheiber is a senior editor at The New Republic.

Has anyone considered what the crime rates would be in this country if we deported the Mexicans? Everywhere they occupy, the crime rates soar! MURDER, CAR THEFT, KIDNAPPING, GANGS, ID THEFT, GRAFFITI.....

AND YET OBAMA AND HIS CORPORATE OWNED DEMS ARE THIS MINUTE WORKING ON ANOTHER FORM OF AMNESTY FOR 38 MILLION MEX FLAG WAVERS.

THE UNEMPLOYMENT, OR MEXICAN CRIME RATES WILL NEVER BE HIGH ENOUGH TO STOP THE DEMS AND THEIR OBSESSION WITH “CHEAP” LABOR FOR THEIR CORPORATE OWNED, LA RAZA CONTRIBUTING PAYMASTERS!

SFgate.COM

Man who kidnapped 4 kids arrestedSunday, July 5, 2009(07-05) 20:57 PDT Los Angeles, CA (AP) --Police arrested a man Sunday who allegedly raped his ex-girlfriend, shot another woman during a carjacking and kidnapped four children, including two of his own, authorities said.Angel Samos, 29, was arrested around 5:30 p.m. in Long Beach and all four children were recovered unharmed, said Los Angeles police Officer Karen Rayner.Samos was shot by an officer during the arrest and was transported to a hospital in stable condition, Rayner said. Further details of the arrest weren't immediately known Sunday night.Samos allegedly sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend Saturday afternoon at a South Los Angeles home and then took the woman, her 11-year-old daughter and her 6-year-old niece to a gas station, according to police Lt. Faryl Fletcher.There he allegedly shot a 24-year-old motorist in the back when she resisted his alleged attempt to carjack her vehicle, Fletcher said.During the shooting, the ex-girlfriend ran away and the man fled with the two children, Fletcher said.Samos later met his mother at a Long Beach liquor store, taking her Toyota along with his own 1- and 5-year-old sons, officials said.Samos had contacted authorities from an undisclosed location and offered to trade at least some of the children for his ex-girlfriend, Fletcher said.The woman shot at the gas station was hospitalized in critical but stable condition and was expected to survive, officials said.